9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties at length. Case file perused. 3. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: "1. On the facts and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 35,38,000/- which is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in applying provision of Section 56(2)(viib) in retrospective manner, to a transaction, which was carried on before introduction or Section 56(2)(viib) in Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in law, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) shall not be applicable to the facts of the case of the Appellant, as the transaction in question, took place on 10/03/2014, whereas provision of Section 56(2)(viib) was introduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been confirmed in the lower appellate discussion. 5. We now come to the fundamental issue of validity of the impugned addition which has admittedly been made in assessee's hands on "protective" basis only. Learned Assessing Officer's detailed discussion in paragraphs 4 to 4.1 in his assessment dated 26.12.2016 adds the impugned sum on protective addition in assessee's hands as under: "4. In view of the above, the assessee being owner as per agreement is liable to be taxed as per section 56(2) (vii) (b) of the IT Act on transfer of property in her name. However, since the inter-arrangement of ownership of share of property and payment of consideration is not determined as the amount has not been paid directly by the assessee but has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x ascendant cautela" basis, in absence of a substantive addition, came up for consideration before this tribunal's learned co-ordinate bench in Suresh K. Jajoo vs. ACIT (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mum) wherein the Revenue's contentions stood rejected as follows: "24. The Tribunal firstly explained the concept of Protective assessment, which was judicially recognized in the case of Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO, 43 ITR 387 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where it appears to the IT authorities that certain income has been received doing the relevant assessment year; but it is not clear who has received that income and prima facie, it appears that income may have been received either by the A or B or by both together, it would be open to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
